The Mark of the Beast

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;5300319:

Another reason why I avoid websites is that sometimes the information is so blatantly wrong and contradictory that it makes me feel frustrated for not being able to let the author know of his or her wrong approach to the Scriptures.

Well, for your own sanity Ben I would let go of that. Other people push our buttons when we approach faith from the ‘I’m right’ approach. Have you ever read anything by James Fowler on faith development? Fowler approaches faith development from a cognitive psychological perspective. To cut a long story short, the more we progress in terms of faith development, the less annoyed we get when our faith is challanged and we grow out of the ‘throwing teddy out of the cot’ phase when people don’t agree with us. I’m not being patronising incidently; I’ve been through the ‘throwing teddy out of the cot’ phase myself and have been know to regress! It is Spiritual growth that takes us past this stage. But then as someone who comes from a scientific background and who believes in God’s Transforming Power, I would concur with Fowler.

 

[minkymurph]

**But of course, you are big enough to admit that along with the joy to share your beliefs with others resides the hidden agenda of the missionary within all of us. Wouldn’t you agree? **
Ben Masada;5300944:

Yep, there sure is! We can’t really help ourselves. However, there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it.

**In my case, the prophecy happens when you come to Jeremiah. And it won’t be nasty for me because if it does not come true, nobody will be around to say that Ben was wrong to quote Jeremiah. **

Well, that’s one way of looking at it!

I have heard before about multiple interpretations to a prophecy. But I have never been able to understand it that way. I believe that every prophecy points to one interpretation only. Unless you are interpreting an allegory or analogy. The metaphorical interpretation can be multiple. But prophecy is totally different.

I mentioned that because the identity of the ‘Anointed One’ or ‘Messiah’ in Isaiah changes and what that Saviour will do for Israel changes. What doesn’t change is they will do something for God’s people by God’s power.

**Yes, gravity is an example of natural law. Imagine if gravity failed. Another natural law is for celestial bodies to rotate orderly in their own habitat, as ordained by God in the beginning. By natural laws going berserk, I would imagine thousands of comets whose heads are composed of thousands of iced meteorites getting through our atmosphere and hitting the earth, as at the time of the Dinosaurs. It would be the end of Mankind. **

Agreed, these are natural laws. However, man may have done a good job of destroying the planet by pollution, global warming and that kind of thing. He has yet to destroy gravity. I suppose my beliefs aren’t unlike yours in that God will preserve his people forever. However we may disagree on who

God’s people are.

I don’t think so. I believe that the Ten Commandments are relative, considering that they were given during the establishment of a private Covenant. The Sinaitic Covenant. For example, the Noahite Covenant was with all Mankind, while the Sinaitic Covenant was with Israel only. Not all commandments of the Ten figure in the seven Noahite laws. Then, going down through the items of the Decalogue, morality differs from curture to culture, as you adequately point out with the example in Cambodia, which indeed says a lot about relative morality.

However to me, there is also such a thing as relative morality. To explain; in Cambodia, the government owned corn fields and the penalty for stealing corn was death. However, the government was a dictatorial, unjust regieme. The peasants harvested the corn for the soldiers, were starving and the land had been taken from them by force. Therefore, were the peasants justified in breaking the commandment ‘You shall not steal’ in this situation?

I don’t think the Cambodia peasants would be justified in breaking the commandment, “You shall not steal.” They would if universal moral codes were absolute. But I believe as you do that they are relative. Therefore, the Law of the Land
reigns, as it applies to both, natives and foreigners.

In an ideal sense I would say they should not steal it. However, if my kids were starving I’d have stolen it and taken my changes with the Almighty had I been shot.

There is a lot of discussion at the moment on morality and relative morality. It’s absolute in the sense that if the peasants took the corn for themselves, it was stealing. It is not defined as something else because of situation. However I suppose you could dispute that. The First Commandment is absolute in that there is no other God. There is one God. The Second Commandment is absolute in that nothing else is to be worshipped as God. I suppose as you go down the list things become more complicated. For example; how does one honour a parent if they are a violent and abusive alcoholic? My we have strayed from the subject of this thread!

 

[Lapell]

If infallibility is when the Pope speaks about matter of faith and morals, what kind of morals do you see in the organization of a Crusade? Pope Innocence III knew very well what Crusades did best: Murders. Don’t you agree that the Pope failed in his infallibility?

You’re trying to sound funny? Also, I think you overestimate very much what that pope would “know” it would do… Don’t mix up milk and meat, will you?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

The gospel writers bent the rules. And to answer your question about sentencing someone immediately my answer is absolutely not. Every sentence above is a contradiction in the NT. The High Priest would never condemn anyone to death without witnesses. We can very well see NT conspiracy to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.

The so-called Jews who condemned Jesus brought forth false witnesses, contrary to the law of Moses. The High Priest tore his robe, contrary to God’s commandment stating a High Priest isn’t to rend his garments. Jesus was condemned to death by apostate Jews and pagan gentiles.

The truth: 1

Anti-semitism: 0

 

[Lapell]

Another reason why I avoid websites is that sometimes the information is so blatantly wrong and contradictory that it makes me feel frustrated for not being able to let the author know of his or her wrong approach to the Scriptures.

Without letting him or her know in which way it is wrong. As for yourself, you are not deep enough in History and in NT Scriptures to come here with any thing more than speculations you read somewhere. You would not accept someone like André Chouraqui’s comments on the New Testament with his presentation on saint Paul, for instance. Even though he studied the Hebrew Bible far enough to translate it into French with its hebraisms quite intact…

 

[Lapell]

** What is the Logic in your saying that there was no way to say what he wrote, because he said verbally? It’s only obvious that he wrote what he wrote and repeated verbally.**

What is YOUR logic in your saying that it’s only obvious that he wrote what he wrote and repeated it verbally? It is NOT the only possibility. Yours is one… among many, and it is the truth.

 

[Lapell]

You must be way under 40, Ben. Maybe even under 30… The kind of talk you have offered us for many months now certainly doesn’t put you above that.

 

[minkymurph]

Without letting him or her know in which way it is wrong. As for yourself, you are not deep enough in History and in NT Scriptures to come here with any thing more than speculations you read somewhere. You would not accept someone like André Chouraqui’s comments on the New Testament with his presentation on saint Paul, for instance. Even though he studied the Hebrew Bible far enough to translate it into French with its hebraisms quite intact…

I have to agree with Lapell here Ben. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you don’t back up what you say with scholarship. There is nothing wrong with having your own opinion as long as you know it is your opinion and nothing more than that.

In relation to infallibility, you seem to be confusing infallibility with being sinless. Many people do that. Catholics do not believe the Pope cannot sin. Neither do they believe he is prevented by God from making bad political or financial decisions. Catholics believe the Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, speaks infallibly in relation to faith and morals when it is needed. That is, when a Consensus of opinion pertaining to faith and morals cannot be reached. Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not believe that if the Pope says I’m going to have CoCo Pops for brekfast every morning Catholics throughout the world will all be eating CoCo pops in an attempt to get into heaven with the Pope’s blessing.

I would not expect someone who is not Catholic to accept the teaching of infallibility. But it is important to me they understand what it is.

 

[look3467]

The first time we hear of the word "mark"is in Genesis. GEN 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Along with that mark the word “vengeance” and the word “sevenfold” hold significant meanings with the “mark” of Cain.

That significance is again resurrected with Jesus.

Abel is represented in similitude to being like as the Jews. Remember that the Jewish high priest offered animal sacrifices.

While Cain offered the “first fruits” and was rejected.

Follow me on this: Job is a similitude of Jesus.

Job 36:16 Because [there is] wrath, [beware] lest he take thee away with [his] stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee.

The Jews are the first fruits in similitude to Cain’s offerings, and Jesus, as a “marked man” offers the first fruits, Jews, as a ransom (sacrifice offering) and is rejected as in verse Job 36:18 above.

Adding this verse giving reason for the rejection: Psa 49:7
None [of them] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Meaning, nothing short of a sacrifice by the Son of God is acceptable.

Vengeance here in the killing of Abel in similitude is ransom for the penalty of the death sentence upon all mankind.

Which now brings us to the “sevenfold” word.

Sevenfold meaning something in the original folded within its self seven times.
In other words, similar to a strip of paper folded seven times, yet the same piece of paper.

Now if Jesus is to take away the sins of the world as stated, would it not include all souls from day one too? Day 1,2,3,4,5,6 and rest on the seventh?

Hence: sevenfold.

All this is a picture of God redeeming mankind using the same 7-day creation picture in Jesus, but this time as a new creation.

Now, as for the “Beast” portion of the mark of the beast, the answer lies in what is a lamb.

Man or animal?

A lamb (a beast by definition) is a similitude of Jesus in sacrifice, for the sevenfold creation and a marked man, that whoso ever find Him exact on Him sevenfold vengeance.

Well, guess who found Him and exacted vengeance on Him on at the cross?

In summary: Jesus, a similitude of the sacrificial lamb (beast) is offered by God to us for our redemption that He, God, placed us in as hope for our salvation.

We have but to accept that gift.

So, here it is: 666 the mark of the beast.The number 6 is the number of a man.

1st 6 = the creation of the first Adam = and flawed, lost.
2nd 6 = the second Adam = not flawed, spiritual, Son of God, yet son of man = came to redeem the first by sacrifice.
3rd 6is the new creature, the new man in Christ, the spiritual new creation in us, and now the only one 6, and heaven bound.

If you can understand all this in picture form, you will appreciate the wonderful works of God in our behalf, by looking at Jesus as the beast of all sin, and nailing it to the cross, rendering us perfect in His blood.

What is there to fear then of the beast or the number 666, when we can understand that in Jesus we have salvation, are assured of eternal life by promise.

The anti-Christ is everything that is opposite to the good that is resident potential in all of us, but overcome by the spirit of God which is in us.

For Jesus confirms this fact:1 John 4:3

			  			And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5300621:

Well, for your own sanity Ben I would let go of that. Other people push our buttons when we approach faith from the ‘I’m right’ approach. Have you ever read anything by James Fowler on faith development? Fowler approaches faith development from a cognitive psychological perspective. To cut a long story short, the more we progress in terms of faith development, the less annoyed we get when our faith is challanged and we grow out of the ‘throwing teddy out of the cot’ phase when people don’t agree with us. I’m not being patronising incidently; I’ve been through the ‘throwing teddy out of the cot’ phase myself and have been know to regress! It is Spiritual growth that takes us past this stage. But then as someone who comes from a scientific background and who believes in God’s Transforming Power, I would concur with Fowler.

**Faith Development. The author sounds familiar. But how can you speak of scientific background and faith in the same sentence? **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5300944:

I have heard before about multiple interpretations to a prophecy. But I have never been able to understand it that way. I believe that every prophecy points to one interpretation only. Unless you are interpreting an allegory or analogy. The metaphorical interpretation can be multiple. But prophecy is totally different.

I mentioned that because the identity of the ‘Anointed One’ or ‘Messiah’ in Isaiah changes and what that Saviour will do for Israel changes. What doesn’t change is they will do something for God’s people by God’s power.

I am afraid you are going to quote what you mean by change in the identity of the Anointed One or Messiah in Isaiah for a more coplete reply.

**Yes, gravity is an example of natural law. Imagine if gravity failed. Another natural law is for celestial bodies to rotate orderly in their own habitat, as ordained by God in the beginning. By natural laws going berserk, I would imagine thousands of comets whose heads are composed of thousands of iced meteorites getting through our atmosphere and hitting the earth, as at the time of the Dinosaurs. It would be the end of Mankind. **

Agreed, these are natural laws. However, man may have done a good job of destroying the planet by pollution, global warming and that kind of thing. He has yet to destroy gravity. I suppose my beliefs aren’t unlike yours in that God will preserve his people forever. However we may disagree on who

God’s people are.

Well, forever not in the context of forever in God, but forever in terms of terminal things. The last to go, so to speak. But of course we may disagree on a number of things, even on who God’s People are, but we can’t rewrite the Scriptures. I mean, the Scriptures Jesus was aware of.

In an ideal sense I would say they should not steal it. However, if my kids were starving I’d have stolen it and taken my changes with the Almighty had I been shot.

Since God has left morality with man, man is he whom we will be dealing with. If you get shot, it’s just too bad. But to look at my kids starving, I too would definitely take the chance at finding a less than kosher way to feed them, if of the green stuff my wallet was empty. The wisest man on earth once implied that too much honesty might have killed the saint.

There is a lot of discussion at the moment on morality and relative morality. It’s absolute in the sense that if the peasants took the corn for themselves, it was stealing. It is not defined as something else because of situation. However I suppose you could dispute that.

**No, I can’t. **

The First Commandment is absolute in that there is no other God. There is one God.

I would say relative according to the culture.

The Second Commandment is absolute in that nothing else is to be worshipped as God.

Again, relative, as other cultures worship other gods.

I suppose as you go down the list things become more complicated. For example; how does one honour a parent if they are a violent and abusive alcoholic?

Therefore, relative.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The so-called Jews who condemned Jesus brought forth false witnesses, contrary to the law of Moses. The High Priest tore his robe, contrary to God’s commandment stating a High Priest isn’t to rend his garments. Jesus was condemned to death by apostate Jews and pagan gentiles.

The truth: 1

Anti-semitism: 0

Thank you for the insult to consider the famous Jewish Sanhedrin a gang of outlaws. You are only perpetrating an antisemitic Church conspiracy.
Mind you that Pope John 23rd already asked publicly from the Jews to forgive the Church for 2,000 years of the false accusation the the Jews killed Jesus. Such magnanimty from a Pope is beyond admiration. But as I can see, you don’t care.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What is YOUR logic in your saying that it’s only obvious that he wrote what he wrote and repeated it verbally? It is NOT the only possibility. Yours is one… among many, and it is the truth.

Well, he was of the same Faith I am. What could be more obvious?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I have to agree with Lapell here Ben. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you don’t back up what you say with scholarship. There is nothing wrong with having your own opinion as long as you know it is your opinion and nothing more than that.

In relation to infallibility, you seem to be confusing infallibility with being sinless. Many people do that. Catholics do not believe the Pope cannot sin. Neither do they believe he is prevented by God from making bad political or financial decisions. Catholics believe the Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, speaks infallibly in relation to faith and morals when it is needed. That is, when a Consensus of opinion pertaining to faith and morals cannot be reached. Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not believe that if the Pope says I’m going to have CoCo Pops for brekfast every morning Catholics throughout the world will all be eating CoCo pops in an attempt to get into heaven with the Pope’s blessing.

I would not expect someone who is not Catholic to accept the teaching of infallibility. But it is important to me they understand what it is.

**Sorry, but only in God is found the attribute of infallibility. **

 

[cthulhubryan]

Thank you for the insult to consider the famous Jewish Sanhedrin a gang of outlaws. You are only perpetrating an antisemitic Church conspiracy.
Mind you that Pope John 23rd already asked publicly from the Jews to forgive the Church for 2,000 years of the false accusation the the Jews killed Jesus. Such magnanimty from a Pope is beyond admiration. But as I can see, you don’t care.

Ben, again with this load of **** called Replacement Theology. No one buys that argument. It doesn’t exist.

As for the Sanhedrin, no one called them a gang of outlaws that is only your emotions clogging your mind and blocking the Truth.

Jesus was convicted based upon false testimony given by the Jews. Jesus was chosen to die when those self-same Jews chose bar-abbas instead of Jesus to be freed.

No antisemitism.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Ben,

Just so I am clear on how this works, let me propose a situation and clarify it using the “reasoning” I have seen here.

A man, we’ll call him David, sees three men, a Buddhist, a Muslim and a Jew each walk up to a different person on the street and shoot them in the head. He not only sees it, he records it on video tape.

Each killer comes to trial.

David testifies against the Buddhist and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is a witness

David testifies against the Muslim and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is a witness.

David testifies against the Jew and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is an antisemitic oppressor.

That about cover it?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, again with this load of **** called Replacement Theology. No one buys that argument. It doesn’t exist.

As for the Sanhedrin, no one called them a gang of outlaws that is only your emotions clogging your mind and blocking the Truth.

Jesus was convicted based upon false testimony given by the Jews. Jesus was chosen to die when those self-same Jews chose bar-abbas instead of Jesus to be freed.

No antisemitism.

**Again, I urge that you read Josephus under the chapter about the character that Pilate was. Of all Romans in Israel, there was never one to hate Jews more than Pilate. Two things never happened with Pilate because it was not in his nature: The washing of his hands from the blood of Jesus and the option between Jesus and Barrabas. If Pilate had a chance to crucify two Jews, he would never let one go.

There were days that he would voluntarily even provoke Jews just not to end the day without putting some on the cross. And about Pilate washing his hand to go clear of guilt of the death of a Jew, such a joke must be for the laughs or for the gags. This is all Church conspiracy to transfer the blame from the Romans to the Jews. After all the Church had to do something to please Constantine for making of Christianity the religion of the Empire.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

Just so I am clear on how this works, let me propose a situation and clarify it using the “reasoning” I have seen here.

A man, we’ll call him David, sees three men, a Buddhist, a Muslim and a Jew each walk up to a different person on the street and shoot them in the head. He not only sees it, he records it on video tape.

Each killer comes to trial.

David testifies against the Buddhist and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is a witness

David testifies against the Muslim and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is a witness.

David testifies against the Jew and shows the video. The man is convicted. David is an antisemitic oppressor.

That about cover it?

What’s that supposed to mean, that it’s forbidden to say that Hitler was an anti-Semite? No, I do know what you mean. It’s all because of the black history of the Church with reference to the Jews. You guys are not comfortable that those pages be reminded as acts of antisemtism. Guess what. There is no way to rewrite History.

 

[sambos671]

So, is the number 666 or 616?

 

[Lapell]

minkymurph;5300976:

**Faith Development. The author sounds familiar. But how can you speak of scientific background and faith in the same sentence? **

I would have thought that to you also Jews faith and reason would not be opposed but actually complementary? For to us Catholics they are. Hence the occurence of “scientific background”(reason) and faith in the same sentence. Either one separate from the other brings disorder one way or the other…